DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Buschkopf, 373 N.W.2d 756.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
    In State v. Buschkopf, we said, in applying Matlock , that “a finding of ‘mutual use’ is the essential ingredient of effective consent.” abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
    However, evidence seized without a valid search warrant is nevertheless admissible if it is “in plain view, there was a prior justification for an intrusion, the discovery was inadvertent, and there was probable cause to believe that the items seized were immediately apparent evidence of crime.” State v. Buschkopf -69 (Minn.1985).
  • State v. Thomas 598 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Thomas 598 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    “[A] finding of'mutual use’ is the essential ingredient of effective consent.” abrogated on other grounds, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
    abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Couture 587 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Couture 587 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (holding district court properly denied change-of-venue motion where defendant did not challenge any seated juror for cause and did not use all peremptory challenges), abrogated on other grounds, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct.
  • In Re the Welfare of D.A.G. 484 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1992
  • In Re the Welfare of D.A.G. 484 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1992
    988, 993 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); -67 (Minn.1985).
  • Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    801(d)(1)(A) advisory committee’s note; (evidence offered for impeachment purposes falls outside the hearsay rule altogether).
  • State v. Halla-Poe 468 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Halla-Poe 468 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In such circumstances the burden is on the state to demonstrate the “police conduct was justified under an established exception to the warrant requirement.”
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
    In State v. Buschkopf this court held that where no seated juror was challenged for cause and defense counsel exercised only 12 of 15 peremptory challenges, defendant was presumed “satisfied with the jury as selected, and [was without ground] to assert the necessity of a venue change.” Id.
  • State v. Johnson 423 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 423 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Redding 422 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Redding 422 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1988
    See State v. Buschkopf -71 (Minn.1985).
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    2022, 2037-38 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); -69 (Minn.1985).
  • State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    at 1380 ; the State has the burden of demonstrating that the “police conduct was justified under an established exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Buschkopf